by Gwyn, Peter
108Registrum Caroli Bothe, pp.189-90.
109 Heal, Of Prelates and Princes, pp.62-4.
110 Ibid, p.328.
111 Ibid, p.62.
112Registrum Caroli Bothe, pp.189-90.
113 PRO SP l/19/fo.168 (LP, iii, 599).
114 BL MS Add 34317, fo 33; for its interpretation see S.J. Lander, ‘Church courts’, p.227.
115LP, iii, 2625.
116 John Allen, John Bell, William Benet, William Burbank, William Clayburgh, William Clayton, John Dowman, Richard Duke, Roland Lee and Edward Steward; see M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.178-80.
117 PRO C/85/188/fos.16 ff.
118LP, iv, 5095.
119LP, iii, 2625.
120Associated Architectural Societies’ Reports and Papers, xxviiii, p.638.
121 Houlbrooke; Bowker, ‘Some archdeacons’ court books’.
122 Brigden, JEH, 32, pp.289-90.
123LP, iv, 2619.
124 Baker, ii, pp.54-7 for biographical information.
125 He was to have what was left after various large legacies to the widow and two younger sons had been paid; see Roper, pp.xxxv-vi. But his father had secured his succession to the post of protonotary, and so may have felt that he had sufficiently provided for him.
126LP, iv, 1118 makes this clear, though not picked up by Kelly in his discussion of the case; see M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.190-1.
127LP, iv, 1118.
128LP, iv, 1518; for the will see LP, iv, 72.
129 Henry Ellis, 3 ser, ii, p.43 (LP, iv, 1157).
130 The reason for saying this is that the examination of the witnesses on 23 March 1526 took place before John Cocks, Warham’s commissary in the joint-prerogative court; see LP, iv, 1518.
131 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.181.
132 For the criticisms of theologians asembled at Alcala in 1479 see Jedin, i, p.41.
133 Ibid, p.131.
134 The best introduction to this subject is Southern, pp.100-69. See also Thomson, Popes and Princes, with a useful bibliography.
135 PRO SP 1/39/fos, 19-29 (LP, iv, 2360); the period covered is July 1525 to July 1526.
136 Houlbrooke, p.185.
137 Henry Ellis, 1 ser, ii, pp.221-2.
138 Wilkins, iii, p.699.
139 The five summonses for 8 June are that for Wolsey’s vicar-general at Bath and Wells (Registers of Thomas Wolsey, John Clerke, etc, pp.27-8; for the bishop of Chichester (WSRO Epl/l/4/fos.104-6); for the bishop of Hereford (Registrum Caroli Bothe, pp.142-4); for the bishop of London, (GRO Register Tunstall, 9531/10/fo.34); for the prior of Butley (Butley Priory, pp.44-6). The two for 2 June are for the bishop of Lincoln (Wilkins, iii, p.700 though not in the extant registers); for the bishop of Rochester (KCA, DR c/R7/fo.110). Rochester’s summons for 2 June was issued on 7 May but so also was Wolsey’s vicar-general’s for 8 June.
140 See Elton, Reform and Reformation, p.92; Guy, EHR, xcvii, pp.483-4; M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.174-7; A.F. Pollard, pp.187-91.
141 Vergil, p.305.
142 Ibid, p.307.
143 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.175 for the suggestion; for the correction LP, iii, 2483 [1]; Goring, EHR, lxxxvi, p.701, n.2.
144 Nix was excluded in connection with the quo warranto proceedings at King’s Lynn. It may be this that prompted Elton to name him amongst Wolsey’s opponents in 1523 (Reform and Reformation, p.92), but there is no other evidnce for it.
145LP, vi, 1672.
146LP, iv, 183. Gloucester College was the first Benedictine Hall in Oxford. It stood on the site now occupied by Worcester College.
147 Heath, BIHR, xlii, pp.101-9.
148 Hall, p.655.
149 Vergil, p.305.
150 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.307-8. Wolsey estimated that it would bring in £120,000; see LP, iii, 2483 [3].
151 Knowles, JEH, 3, pp.144-58.
152 Harper-Bill, JEH, 29, pp.6 ff. for both episodes.
153 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.42-94.
154 Cavendish, p.16.
155 See pp.31-2 above.
156 On 7 Feb. 1519; Wolsey’s having been summoned for 14 March. A copy of Warham’s summons is to be found in BL MS Add 48012, fo.53v.
157 Wilkins, iii, pp.660-1 (LP, iii, 77 (2)). It is not dated but presumably written fairly soon after Warham’s summonses had been sent out on 2 Dec.
158 PRO SP l/18/fo.37 (LP, iii, 77 [6]).
159 Guy, Cardinal’s Court, pp.76, 164-5 for the suggestion and documentation; see also Elton, Reform and Reformation, pp.56-7.
160 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p.330
161 Kelly’s suggestion that Warham failed to turn up for the legatine council depends in my view on a misdating of LP, iii, 120. Though placed in 1519 in LP, the suggestion in AC, i, p.20 of 1523 seems to me more likely; but see M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.167.
162 Here I am following Kelly (‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.186-7), though in general he takes a gloomier view of their relationship than I do.
163 Mitchell, pp.86-7.
164 Ibid, p.116.
165LP, iii, 695, 756; the celebrations took place every fifty years, and were due in 1520.
166LP, iii, 1218.
167LP, iii, 2767; for another offer of lodgings by Wolsey, this time in Aug. 1525, see LP, iv, 1591.
168LP, iii, 98; iv, 1157.
169 Wilkins, iii, p.661.
170LP, iv, app.39. It is quoted by Bernard in his excellent assessment of the relationship between the two men; see Bernard, War, Taxation and Rebellion, pp.96-107.
171 M J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.104-8.
172 See pp.290-1 above.
173 PRO SP l/18/fo.37 (LP, iii, 77 [6]).
174LP, iv, 4659.
175 PRO SP l/50/fo.20 (LP, iv, 4659); Fasti, iv, p.34.
176LP, iv, 5589.
177 Ibid.
178 See LP, iv, 5491, 5492 for Nix’s ‘fury and fretting melancholy’ in this matter. For the English envoys having fun with Clement VII at Nix’s expense see LP, iv, 4120; and called ‘a devilish man’ in a letter to Cromwell 5 Jan. 1530 (LP, iv, 6159).
179 A.F. Pollard, pp.165-216.
180LP, iii, 1972.
181 His first embassy was to Brussels in 1515, an embassy made famous because it was during it that More wrote some of Utopia.
182 For Tunstall’s opposition to Henry’s religious changes but eventual submission see Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp.276-7, 330-1.
183 Chambers, ‘English representation’, pp.379 ff.
184LP, iii, 3594.
185 Bowker, Henrician Reformation is the major source for all aspects of Longland’s life.
186 O’Day and Heal, p.20 for a similarly optimistic view.
187 S.J. Lander, ‘Diocese of Chichester’; ‘Church courts’.
188 S. Thompson, ‘English and Welsh bishops’, p.168 for his preaching; more generally Pill.
189 In the dedication to West of his Defensio regie assertionis, quoted by Heal in her ‘Bishops of Ely’, p.9.
190 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp.273 ff; ‘Conservative episcopate’, pp.72 ff.
191LP, ii, 4070.
192 Henry Ellis, 3 ser, i, pp.184-5 (LP, ii, 4083).
193 Ibid.
194LP, ii, 4074, 4083.
195LP, iv, 4824.
196 Durham’s revenue in the Valor Ecclesiaticus was £3,023, Winchester’s £3,888.
197 For preventions or, as earlier they were more frequently called, provisions see Southern, pp.156-69 for a good introduction.
198LP, iv, 6075, art.7, though probably Pollard’s views have been even more influential; see A.F. Pollard, pp.204 ff.
199 S. Thompson, ‘English and Welsh bishops’, p.26 though there were wide variations; for instance 5 per cent for York, 26 per cent for Durham.
200 I have failed to discover the total number of livings in the abbey’s gift, but there were 26 in the counties of He
rtfordshire and Lincolnshire; see Bowker, Secular Clergy, pp.67-8
201 Croke, ii, p.819, quoting from BL Lansdowne 163, fo.141, where the number of livings at his disposal is put at 40. See also O’Day.
202LP, iv, 3304.
203 My suggested breakdown is York 120 appointments, Durham 60, Salisbury, 80, Worcester 30, St Albans 50, lord chancellor 40, but I must stress that these are very rough and ready figures.
204 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.10 for his estimate of 135 appointments in his gift, to which should be added the putative 40 as lord chancellor.
205Fasti, iii. The certainty is Peter Vannes to the prebend of Grantham australis in 1528; there are 10 possible appointments.
206Fasti, vi.
207 See inter alia LP, ii, 3834; iii, 2136; iv, 1385-6, 2576, 4135, 4647, 5069, 5410.
208LP, iv, 1529.
209 A.F. Pollard, pp.308-12 for a useful summary.
210LP, iv, 6075, art.27.
211 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.27-30.
212 For West asking Wolsey to promote his nephew to the living of East Dereham see LP, iii, 1030.
213LP, iv, 4527. Pate did retain the prebend but there is no evidence of whether Wolsey accepted the bribe. For Pate see Bowker, Henrician Reformation, pp.79-80.
214 His brother Robert Fisher was his steward.
215 Lehmberg, p.84.
216 Lupton, pp.301-2.
217 Pantin, English Church, pp.47-102 for the most useful treatment but see also Deeley.
218 The statutes of provisors are dated 1351 and 1390, the statutes of praemunire 1353, 1365 and 1393, the last being the ‘Great Statute of Praemunire’.
219 LRO Bishops’ Possessions, Manorial, unnumbered box.
220 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.171.
221St. P, vi, p.257 (LP, iv, 126).
222LP, iv, 568, 610.
223LP, iv, 6035.
224 I owe this information to Bowker’s kindness, taken from LAO Register 27 (Longland), fos.148v-9; the register actually refers to ‘Alyn’. Another oddity is that the charge stated that Allen was prevented on 2 Dec. 15 Hen.VIII, that is in 1523 (PRO KB 29/161/ m.37), but all the evidence suggests that Woderuffe was rector of Galby until his death in either late 1526 or early 1527 and that only then did Allen succeed him.
225LP, iv, 2340.
226LP, iv, 3277. For those obsessed with the notion of faction, Norfolk’s involvement in this episode will be of interest, but he seems to have been in favour of the removal, so presumably, on this occasion at least, not antagonistic to Wolsey.
227 GRO MS 9531/10/fo.31v.
228 ‘The pardon of the clergy’ agreed to on 24 Jan. 1531.
229 GRO MS 9531/10/fos.22, 23, 28, 29.
230 Ibid, fo.26.
231LP, iv, 193.
232LP, iv, 4521.
233LP, iv, 5533; see also Glanmor Williams, pp.310 ff. The episode provided the centre-piece of Pollard’s attack on Wolsey’s use of preventions; see A.F.Pollard, pp.206-8.
234Registrum Thome Wolsey, p.59.
235 Baker, ii, p.69, where full documentation is provided.
236 This would be to exclude 4 out of the 8 London preventions, 4 out of the King’s Bench cases, Galby, Laverstoke, and Wirksworth.
237 See Heal, ‘Bishops of Ely’, pp.6-7.
238LP, iv, 4527.
239 Always assuming that the compositions followed the pattern of the only surviving copy, that for Lincoln.
240 GRO MS. 9531/10/fos 87-101.
241LP. iv, 4489. The episode is a good example of the formal record concealing the truth.
242LP, iv, 4335.
243LP, iv, 4476.
244LP, iv, 4521.
245LP, iv, 4521.
246LP, iv, 4562, 4605.
247LP, iv, 4546; Fasti, i, p.14.
248 For Fisher complying with a royal request in 1523 see S. Thompson, ‘Bishop in his diocese’, p.73.
249 J.A. Robinson, pp.5-8 for Henry VII’s letter to Sir Reginald Bray dated 1501/2 in which the king gave an account of the promise. Sadly both Henry VII’s and Edward IV’s involvement with the Church has been inadequately treated by recent biographers.
250 Harper-Bill, JEH, 29, a most important and not sufficiently well-known article.
251 See pp.43 ff. above.
252 McFarlane.
253LP, i, 2611.
254St. P.i, p.311 (LP, iv, 4476).
255LP, iii, 600, a letter of Henry’s to Leo X of 20 Jan. 1520 in which he acknowledged that reform was their purpose.
256 Richard Fox, p.116 (LP, iii, 1122).
257 The most useful treatment is M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, pp.292-315, but see also Salter; Scarisbrick, JEH, 12.
258 Harper-Bill, JEH, 29, pp.2-4.
259 Goring, EHR, lxxxvi, p.693.
260LP, iv, 2483 (3), but in the end only £56,252 Os. 8d. may have been paid; see LP, iv, app.37.
261 Many of the bishops’ registers bear witness to this but see especially Fisher’s (KAO DR c/R7/fo.113).
262 Using Kelly’s figures, the amount paid between 1490 and 1520 was £205,000, or £6,800 a year. In the 1520s it was £8,000 a year this little less than for 1445-53 when it was £8,250; see Griffiths, Henry VI, p.384.
263LP, iv, 964.
264 M.J. Kelly, ‘Canterbury jurisdiction’, p.194; Registrum Thome Wolsey, p.xxvi.
265St. P, vi, p.257 (LP, iv, 115).
266 In Wolsey’s defence it should be stressed that the amount would vary considerably, depending especially on whether any large-scale visitations had taken place.
267Ven. Cal., iv, p.600. These figures are mainly taken from A.F.Pollard, pp.320-5.
268 See Southern, pp.111 ff., 164 for perceptive comments on this most important general point.
269 See pp.25-6 above.
270 Storey, BP, 16, pp.15-7, qualified in R.G. Davies, pp.55-64.
271 Richard Fox, p.116 (LP, iii, 1122).
272 See p.52 above.
273 Richard Fox, pp.114-45 (LP, iii, 1122).
274 It is slightly surprising that both in his thesis and published article Kelly completely ignored the legatine constitutions when discussing those of 1532, an indication, perhaps, of just how strong the view is that the English Church was violently hostile to all that Wolsey had done.
275 The best starting point for this recent work is O’Day and Heal, pp.13-29, but see also S. Thompson, ‘English and Welsh bishops’.
276Visitations, c.1515-1525, p.xiv; Fines, JEH, 14, pp.160-74.
277 A.F. Pollard, pp.200-4.
278 The 20 occasions in alphabetical order: Athelney (1526); Barlinch (1524); Bristol, St.Augustine’s (1525); Bruerne (1529); Butley (1529); Chester (1524, 1527); Fountains (1526); Glastonbury (1525); Haltenprice (1528); Milton (1525); Newcastle (1523); Pershore (1526); Peterborough (1528); Rievaulx (1529); Selby (1526); Taunton (1523); Wherwell (1529); Wigmore (1518); Wilton (1528). Newcastle, Wherwell and Wilton were Benedictine nunneries.
279 The formal records of the election are set out in Registers of Thomas Wolsey, John Clerke, etc., pp.84-8; for a detailed account see Gasquet, Last Abbot of Glastonbury, pp.17-23.
280 Domerham, i, pp.c-ci (LP, iv, app.22).
281 Knowles, Religious Orders, iii, pp.483-91; Paul, BIHR, xxxiii, pp.115-18.
282Registers of Thomas Wolsey, John Clerke, etc., pp.76-9.
283 Richard Fox, pp.79-80 (LP, ii, 730); see also LP, ii, 904, 906, 990.
284 Jerome de Ghinucci from 1523-1535. St Augustine’s was in the diocese of Worcester and subject to its bishop’s jurisdiction.
285LP, iv, 1544 for Hannibal’s letter, dated 3 Aug. 1525, but see also LP, iv, 1816, 1828.
286 Knowles, Religious Orders, iii, pp.35-7.
287LP, iv, 5445.
288LP, iv, app.85.
289LP, iv, app.73.
